I want to sub'. I will be getting the X5 for sure, but also want the DX90. Maybe I'll have both for a while and then sell the one I don't want or keep them both if they're equally awesome.

So jamato, do you think the DX90 will be superior to the DX100?

An educated and experience based guess, very possibly so. Less power but two dacs, remodeled amp section, more transparent. I do not think iBasso will hold back for one minute making the DX90 the best they can and that means even if it betters the DX100.

An educated and experience based guess, very possibly so. Less power but two dacs, remodeled amp section, more transparent. I do not think iBasso will hold back for one minute making the DX90 the best they can and that means even if it betters the DX100.

Thta's very exciting. Oh the possibilities!

DAPs are getting so good now I'm thinking about selling my home rig and just going fully portable. Maybe buy the LCD-XC and calling it a day.

DAPs are getting so good now I'm thinking about selling my home rig and just going fully portable. Maybe buy the LCD-XC and calling it a day.

I got the Fostex TH900 because I have to use mostly closed phones and was hoping they would grant me a near open soundfield of a good open phone and they do and I can listen without bothering anyone. Though rewiring with the new Whiplash gold plated silver did step them up one more notch. I am anxious to hear the DX90. I suspect it will be at the top of the heap.

considering the fact that "better" is sometimes too subjective, i guess dx90 will be at the level of dx100 in sound quality ; most probably not over it. i take the companies naming strategy, and analyze it in the way that dx90 will be far from dx50 in sq, much closer to dx100 (possibly in the same levels) ; but the -10 of dx90 from dx100 in its name means the lesser power of its amplification.

With the same logic, if you want to make a dap between dx50 and dx100 one should probably use the mean and name it with dx75 right? Choosing a different attitude and naming it 'so close' to your reference dap i guess means that they are roughly of the same level - but the output power.

considering the fact that "better" is sometimes too subjective, i guess dx90 will be at the level of dx100 in sound quality ; most probably not over it. i take the companies naming strategy, and analyze it in the way that dx90 will be far from dx50 in sq, much closer to dx100 (possibly in the same levels) ; but the -10 of dx90 from dx100 in its name means the lesser power of its amplification.

With the same logic, if you want to make a dap between dx50 and dx100 one should probably use the mean and name it with dx75 right? Choosing a different attitude and naming it 'so close' to your reference dap i guess means that they are roughly of the same level - but the output power.

I would not go that far with how iBasso named their new born. To me and lots of other head-fiers it's about technology being used and space constriction. In our world of miniaturization, we've gone a long way but one technology that constantly hit hard walls is battery. Power will be as much as you can cram in a box and hopefully as little as the components will require to efficiently drive the loads. It's quite an achievement to get the kind of power the DX50 provides with the technology currently used. The DX90 has a bigger challenge but also hopefully requires less energy most likely because of efficient components being used. The DX90 as spec'ed out is a formidable amalgam of latest ICs available currently on the market. If the iBasso engineering team is as sharp as they have been, the implementation is sure to wow anyone plugging their phones on it. The number at that stage is rather meaningless but what matters is how the iBasso engineering team can efficiently and without coloration maintain sq. I am more than excited to learn that iBasso has already the device developed and almost ready for commercialization. Let's see if the numbers will match the perception when listening to it.

sure i agree. but as i said it is just a guess following probable 'hints'. i am not speaking in an absolute way, yet no one claims to be a marketting nostradamus :) however, the numbering, and the specs do point that way, and my above guesses will most probably be right. anyway, that is just nonsense speaking anyway. what we will see we'll see.

i am hoping to have a better dx50, a player that has better dynamics, a more organic sound, more extended (say not rolled-off) and crisp treble, and deeper bass from dx90. these i think are the weak points of dx50 in sq department ; and the department in which my new sony f886 totally bests dx50.

sure i agree. but as i said it is just a guess following probable 'hints'. i am not speaking in an absolute way, yet no one claims to be a marketting nostradamus :) however, the numbering, and the specs do point that way, and my above guesses will most probably be right. anyway, that is just nonsense speaking anyway. what we will see we'll see.

i am hoping to have a better dx50, a player that has better dynamics, a more organic sound, more extended (say not rolled-off) and crisp treble, and deeper bass from dx90. these i think are the weak points of dx50 in sq department ; and the department in which my new sony f886 totally bests dx50.

I think iBasso is targeting firmware 1.2.8 for the DX90 as a start but of course with the Saber DACs as a source, it will most likely be numbered 1.0. That is just my guess who knows what they are currently planning to do but we only have a month and a week or two before launch. Anyone dare to speculate?

With the way my DX50 is sounding I can't wait to hear the DX90. Wow, have players come a long ways in the past couple of years. Smaller and powerful. The DX50, DX90, X5 and you don't have to sell a kidney to get one.